Bishop Hill An odd coupling
Jun 17, 2013 Climate: Models Climate: other Reader Jelle U. Hielkema left an interesting comment about Aubrey Meyer's evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee last week. Meyer has accused the Met Office of deliberately misleading the committee in earlier evidence:
[Y]ou asked me to summarise the key points in Aubrey's work. I am assuming you mean on the matter of ‘contempt for the house‘. To do this you need to look at Aubrey’s *written evidence* to the EAC particularly on pages 19 and 20. It is here: -http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/EAC_Real_.pdf
The key point in this is the *proof* on pages 19 and 20 that the UKMO did intentionally mislead [lie to] the original EAC enquiry in 2009 and that they are continuing with the lie now. This is knowingly misleading the house and when and if the EAC gets its head around that, they will pursue it.
This is what you need to pursue, if you [all?] want to go after the UK Met Office for *provably lying to the EAC*. The UK Met Office is incidentally the UK Government's main 'arm' in IPCC and UNFCCC. The *lie* is deliberately concealing in 2009 that UKMO turned a major *positive*-feedback in the projected carbon-cycle [fully reported as such in IPCC AR4 in 2007] into a major *negative*-feedback in the model upon which the UK Climate Act [which became law in 2008] is based and not telling the EAC they had done this. In other words, they sold the EAC a 'Story' which Aubrey Meyer has documented in the written evidence to the EAC and which I sent this blog earlier and which raised 'not yet banned's Question. I send it again here: -http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/EAC_Real_.pdf
Please do understand, the *sign* of the feedback is a very big deal indeed. Aubrey says, think of positive feedback in the carbon-cycle as a *bad-thing* [it makes a bad situation worse as more and more carbon stays in the sky as a fraction of the ‘budget-emissions’ from fossil fuel burning etc]. However, think of negative feedback as a *good-thing* [it makes a bad situation less bad as less and less carbon stays in the sky as a fraction of the ‘budget-emissions’ from fossil fuels etc that you are burning]. In fact you can think of a negative feedback in the carbon cycle as like finding the Holy Grail. It is like turning water into wine; in response to budget-emissions, carbon will be falling out of the sky and not adding up in it. So the 'discovery' by UKMO in their model that what was first a positive feedback was in fact a negative feedback is [at least in their terms] huge ‘good news’.
So on contempt for the House, the issue is not which of these [positive or negative] is true. The issue here [on contempt for the house] is, why would UKMO have lied to the 2009 Enquiry and misled them into believing that this so-called ‘coupled carbon cycling’ was in the Climate Act as very significant positive feedback [as reported in IPCC AR4 in 2007], when in fact you knew [but didn’t say] that using a model called MAGICC the feedback had been turned into a negative feedback in the UK Climate Act at least fully one year earlier in 2008.
Why did they do this? It is something that if anything they would have shouted about. But UKMO didn't say anything about this change of sign. In fact they did exactly the opposite, as the evidence from Dr Jason Lowe [quoted on page 20 of Aubrey’s evidence shows], they continued to make the EAC believe that it was a positive feedback making things worse.
This is an area of the climate debate that has rarely been touched on at BH, and so I'm very much in learning mode. But it seems to me that if the Met Office model had included the climate-carbon cycle feedbacks as positive, then we would have an even bigger divergence between models and observations.
I guess this is one plausible reason why the sign might have ended up reversed.
Reader Comments (73)
The feedbacks emerge as the model calculates the predicted equilibrium enthalpy of the atmosphere, shared between latent and sensible heat as time and [CO2] progress.
Their problem is they assume a perpetual motion machine (The Aarhenius black body emission assumption) which increases heat generation rate by a bit less than 6.85, then use ~double real low level cloud optical depth to offset the temperature rise.
The feedback is the imaginary extra [H2O] from the exponential evaporation kinetics of the sunlit ocean over cloudy ocean. It doesn't exist but the hind casting makes the temperatures match! This is classical GIGO.
The question was raised as to what the Meyer predictions are.
A fair question. The answer appears to be projections rather than predictions.
This user-active animation demonstrates the range of these: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/CBAT/cbat-domains/Domains.swf
Ample room for contrarian affinity group members here it would appear.
Everyone is challenged to come up with their preferred - numerate - projections.
I'm returning this because the discussion has started up again on Twitter (after I responded to a tweet from Maurizio). I called Aubrey Meyer a scaremonger and alarmist because he keeps talking about runaway climate change and "loss of control" without any real evidence for this. He accuses the Met Office of misleading the EAC and downplaying the risks of runaway climate change, but these accusations are simply based on Aubrey's misunderstanding of carbon cycle modelling.
Gareth (Jun 17, 2013 at 4:26 PM) is correct that Aubrey's complaint is unfounded because he is not comparing apples with apples.
On page 19 of the document he prepared for the EAC, Aubrey presents three carbon budgets from two different studies.
The first two budgets are from one study, with and without climate-carbon cycle feedbacks ("coupled" and "uncoupled" respectively). To stay at 450ppm, emissions need to be lower in the coupled case compared to the uncoupled case because (in the model) warming causes a weakening of the carbon sinks so less carbon is absorbed by natural sinks. This is the positive feedback between climate change and the carbon cycle.
The third budget is from a different study, and is only the coupled case. Therefore it is not possible to say from this information alone whether the feedbacks between climate change and the carbon cycle are positive or negative, as there is no uncoupled case to compare against.
The second and third carbon budgets are both coupled cases, and the difference between them is simply that different models were used. There are huge uncertainties in the strength of climate-carbon cycle feedbacks and different models give different answers. The fact that two models give different answers does not necessarily mean that one has an additional negative feedback - in this case, they both have positive feedbacks between climate change and the carbon cycle, but the feedbacks are of different strengths. The positive feedback is weaker in the third budget than the second, which is why higher emissions still give 450ppm by 2050.
The statements in the final paragraph of page 19 ("This concentration result is negative feedback....no attention was drawn to the negative feedback UKMO were now claiming for coupled carbon cycling") are simply wrong. The simulated climate-carbon cycle feedback is not a negative feedback, we are not claiming it is a negative feedback, and hence there was no reason to draw attention to something that was not the case nor being claimed.
So it is not the case that the Met Office modelling changed from positive to negative climate-carbon cycle feedbacks. Our models still suggest positive feedbacks between climate change and the carbon cycle in the future - but not the runaway feedbacks that Aubrey speaks of.
Richard Betts of the UKMO appears not to be aware: -
[1] the Carbon Budget shown [Green - & what he calls the 3rd budget] *is the UK Climate Act* [2016 4% Low]
[2] the coupled & uncoupled curves shown are from the Hadley Model [as published in C4MIP IPCC AR4]
[3] UKMO advised EAC 2009 *they HAD included* 'coupling in the UK Climate Act
[4] but failing to reveal to EAC just *how they had actually done this* [by turning positive feedback into negative feedback - more than 100% sink-efficiency by 2050 etc etc]
[5] and *for the first time ever in 20 years of IPCC* showing concentrations as *falling* and *not rising*
[6] creating a policy-maker's nightmare with all this in that no-one had the vaguest clue with the UK Climate Act as to which were budget-emissions and which were feedback emissions [as indicated in the evidence at http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/EAC_Real_.pdf
So Bishop Hill has grounds for speculating that this *is* evidence of UKMO repositioning towards the sceptics.
In that UKMO also has speculated on its website for at least the last 4 years that they haven't included major feedbacks [Permafrost melt etc] because they just don't know how to model this, there are grounds for speculating that we do indeed face the potential for 'loss of control curves' from feedback emissions, and it is misleading not to draw attention to this [as I and many others have done].
The GCI emissions:concentration curves on page 10 are consistently *lower than* [NB] the upper band curves from the UKMO. So at least to start with this is less scary and more plausible than UKMO.
Certainly, none of this is nearly as 'scare-mongery' as your slide set for the Oxford conference in September 2009 showing the potential for *massive positive feedback* starting 2010.
So for particularly *you* to describe GCI's evidence as 'alarmism' in this context is a little - how shall I put it? - 'lush' I fear.
Consequently, my advice to you Richard is this: - if you want to turn water into wine and drink it, that's fine. Probably many will make merry and drink it with you, unless [that is] you are trying to walk on it at the same time. That is a different matter, because God no-one will know what else is going to be in it.
Ah, so that's why you're trying to smear the Met Office - it's all about the politics for you, not the science.
The Met Office's position on the science of climate change depends on the current scientific evidence. We've never held the position of "runaway" climate change that you do. Yes I showed strong carbon cycle feedbacks in my talk at the Oxford conference, but this is not the same (and not as extreme) as "runaway". And since then, our updated models have show less extreme effects on the terrestrial biosphere. I don't have a problem with that - science moves on. You just have to be open-minded enough to keep reviewing the evidence, not blindly stick to some ideological pathway (like you do).
Your post has too many inaccuracies, misunderstandings and irrelevances for me to deal with all of them right now, so I'll just deal with [4].
Basically, your concept of "sink efficiency" is flawed. You seem to think that the sink strength ought to relate to the anthropogenic emissions happening at that time. This is simply not correct. A large part of the carbon sink is plant life, and plants grow better under higher CO2 concentrations due to enhanced photosynthesis. It is therefore the change in CO2 concentrations that affects the strength of this sink, not the emissions. Plants have absolutely no idea how much CO2 is being emitted by human activity - how could they? They respond directly to the amount of CO2 that is actually in the atmosphere.
Since CO2 can stay in the atmosphere for decades, it is perfectly possible to have a scenario where CO2 emissions have been reduced but the CO2 concentration has not dropped yet. So, the carbon sink will remain strong, in response to the high CO2 concentrations, even though the emissions are now low.
You interpret this as a "more than 100% sink efficiency" but that is simply based on a flawed concept of "efficiency".
This is therefore not "turning positive feedbacks into negative feedbacks".
Water didn't turn into wine. You just thought it did because you drank water and then were caught out talking incoherently, so tried to claim your drink had been spiked.
Powerful evidence for positive feedback of man-mad analogies; rhetorical tipping points dangerously close.
But for all the colourful phrasing, useful to see it thrashed out, thanks.
Mr Richard Betts’ latest comments are examined here. Betts says: -
“On page 19 of the document he prepared for the EAC, Aubrey presents three carbon budgets from two different studies.”
Betts makes another incorrect statement of what the GCI evidence page 19 presents.
Here, with more chart referencing, is what was laid out in that GCI evidence. Moreover, here is the very image published in IPCC AR4 2007 from the C4MIP modelling group http://www.gci.org.uk/images/C4MIP_IPCC_AR4.pdf in which UKMO and others claimed to modelled coupled-carbon-cycle feedback.
This image shows the UKMO Coupled and Uncoupled ‘contraction:concentrations’ scenarios for 450 ppmv from ‘Hadley SM’.
In fact GCI was thanked by IPCC TSU afterwards for having made it much clearer [“We wish out authors had been as clear as this”] when GCI animated UKMO’s contribution to the work of the C4MIP Group [IPCC AR4 2007] here for Hilary Benn: - http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation.swf
One hopes that Mr Betts would at least find it impossible to refute this ‘evidence’ of what UKMO did in the C4MIP group leading to 2007.
However, please may we be quite clear about this: - ‘answering GCI’s evidence to that EAC Enquiry in 2009, the UKMO stated in a supplementary memo that they *had* incorporated the Coupled-Carbon-Cycle modelling in IPCC AR4 from the C4MIP programme, into the global ‘CO2-carbon-emissions-contraction-budget’ on which the UK Climate Act is based [2016 4% Low http://www.gci.org.uk/images/UKCA.pdf ].
Indeed this is what UKMO stated in their 2009 memo: -
“The models used by the Committee on Climate Change did include a coupling between climate and the carbon cycle & took full account of the ‘coupled’ model research presented in the AR4 WG1 report, the C4MIP study and related research.”
Indeed, Mr Jason Lowe’s live evidence to the EAC in June 2009 stated: -
“I had a look at the submission from the Global Commons Institute last night and the figure I think you refer to comes from IPCC in chapter 10: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Coupled_Uncoupled_AR4.pdf
In this context, ‘uncoupled’ refers to whether temperature feeds back onto the carbon cycle, so where the temperature and rainfall can affect how trees take up carbon, and it has a very particular meaning.
For the curve in question, basically you run the model without this effect of climate feedback on to trees and the biosphere and you get one number, you run it again with this effect, the coupled version, you get a different number.
If you have got the same emissions going in, the coupled version leads to typically a higher concentration because you are increasing the emissions that come back from the biosphere. [i.e. a positive feedback].
The runs that the Climate Change Committee used to include those feedbacks, so in that definition they were described as coupled. The precise values we use to work out the magnitude of the coupling comes from elsewhere in IPCC and from a study referred to as a C4MIP study, which to date is the most comprehensive analysis of that particular type of feedback onto the carbon cycle.”
UKMO/Hadley’s ‘Uncoupled Carbon Budget’ for 450 PPMV as published in IPCC Fourth Assessment [2007] http://www.gci.org.uk/images/C4MIP_IPCC_AR4.pdf has carbon emissions that: -
• Start in 2010 at over 11.2 Gt C
• Peak at around 13 Gt C around 2020
• Shrink on average by ~ 3% a year by 2110
• By when it has reached an output value of ~ 1.5 Gt C per annum
Between 2010 and 2100 it weighed around 520 Gt C
• Gave an outcome value for CO2 concentrations of 450PPMV or 960 Gt C.
UKMO/Hadley’s ‘Coupled Carbon Budget’ for 450 PPMV as published in IPCC Fourth Assessment [2007] http://www.gci.org.uk/images/C4MIP_IPCC_AR4.pdf has carbon emissions that: -
• Start in 2010 at around 9 Gt C
• Peaks at around 10 Gt C around 2020
• Shrink on average by over 4% year
• And by 2070 has gone to nearly zero emissions
• Which is continued into the 22nd Century
• Between 2010 and 2100 it weighed around 295 Gt C [a reduction of > 50%] but
• Gave an outcome value for CO2 concentrations of 450PPMV or 960 Gt C.
Median CO2 concentration value calculated by UKMO in the UK Climate Act measured in:
• Parts Per Million by Volume [PPMV] and as Weight in Gigatonnes Carbon [Gt C].
Once again, one hopes that Mr Betts would find it impossible to refute this ‘evidence’ of what UKMO actually did.
However, what the UKMO *actually did* to this coupled/uncoupled model for the UK Climate Act when they stated in their 2009 memo: -
“The models used by the Committee on Climate Change did include a coupling between climate and the carbon cycle & took full account of the ‘coupled’ model research presented in the AR4 WG1 report, the C4MIP study and related research.”
. . . was to produce a model run that: -
• Starts in 2010 at 10.9 Gt C
• Peaks in 2016 just under 12 Gt C
• Shrinks on average by 4% a year
• Reaching an output value of 0.3 Gt C by 2100
• Weighing 395 Gt C 2010 – 2100
• Gave a peak value for CO2 concentrations of PPMV as 445.72 or 949 Gt C in 2050
• [and this is the key difference] with an outcome value *lowered to* 427 PPMV or 910 Gt C in 2100 [NB with concentrations now *falling* when we compare coupling with uncoupling and not as before *rising* when we compare coupling with uncoupling
GCI’s answer to this ‘memo’ is to point out that [in their words] to, ‘take full account of the Coupling’ in the UKCA Carbon Budget, what the UKMO did was: -
• To add over 114 Gt C or 25% to their ‘Coupled Budget’ but also . . .
• To *subtract* nearly 60 Gt C from their atmospheric concentration outcome [!]
One is tempted to ask at this point, does UKMO regard this are “a little more” or “a little less unlikely” or is it perhaps “a huge uncertainty”?
As was stated in the GCI Evidence, Mr Betts and UKMO are obviously welcome to give whatever name[s] they like to this model [perhaps Cindy, or Barbie or Peter Pan and Wendy might be appropriate].
However, since they called it ‘positive feedback’ when concentrations *rose* for coupling, it seems reasonable to call it ‘negative feedback’ when [as in the UK Climate Act] concentrations *fall* for coupling.
That said, *the ‘name’ is not the issue*. They are welcome to name-call however they choose. *It is the dramatically changing numbers that is the issue.*
Perhaps Mr Betts and his model were just having a bad-hair-day or a change of mood. However, does Mr Betts really still want to avoid this ‘evidence’ of how UKMO actually changed concentrations rising in concentrations falling [positive to negative feedback] for coupling between IPCC AR4 [2007] and the UK Climate Act [2008] and to that massive extent?
Then let us note that in 2009 [concurrent with that EAC Enquiry and fully one year after the Climate Act] Mr Betts and his colleagues were projecting massive positive feedback [and calling it that] with the “die-off” scenario [as here: - http://www.gci.org.uk/images/DIE_OFF.pdf ]
Only now in 2013, does he describe this - on his scientific and voluminous ‘twitter’ account - simply as “less likely”, while he now defends himself here by alluding to the “huge uncertainties” on the issues.
Thank Goodness - Die-Off becomes Live-On . . . .
Be that as it may, be in no doubt that the UKMO are now programming this [call it what you like] *negative feedback* into the RCPs into the forthcoming IPCC AR5 with no ‘error bars’ or ‘uncertainties’ shown at all [see GCI Evidence to EAC 2013 http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/EAC_Real_.pdf pages 29 – 34].
Does he want to refute that they then *concealed* this change from the EAC Enquiry [2009]. Does he not comprehend that it is the fact is the *concealment* of this change [it was not declared] misled everyone? Does he not have any concern about the continuing omission [after 20 years] of the major feedback effects from - we are told - their peerless model?
Moreover, the result that UKMO put in the Climate Act [2008] was a result that contradicted all the models in the C4MIP study reported in the IPCC AR4 [2007].
Contrarians might understandably be please with this massive turnaround from the UKMO. However, for all of us there is the troubled issue *not of the reversed feedbacks * but *of the omitted feedbacks*.
This new ‘result’ asserted this negative feedback in the face of UKMO *also being forced to admit* to [and again after] the EAC 2009 Enquiry, all the other major positive feedback effects that had been *omitted from their ‘model’* [see all UKMOs own words on pages 13 to 16 http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/EAC_Real_.pdf - naming CO2 and CH4 from Permafrost melt as two of these as “a big deal” - of the GCI evidence to the current EAC Enquiry].
In the face of these truly alarming omissions [for which they are now being rebuked even from the IMF and from UNEP – again see evidence pages 13 to 16] it is almost comical to watch Mr Betts continue to avoid them and resort instead to accusations of ‘alarmism’ against parties who feel it would be more prudent to confront them rather than simply de-select them because they are fraught with complexity and uncertainty.
After agent-‘curveball’ was exposed as fabricating the evidence that Tony Blair used as cause d’guerre on Iraq 2, Robin Butler was asked by a BBC journalist, ‘Did Tony Blair lie?’ ‘No’, said Butler [Blair’s Cabinet Secretary at the time] 'no he did not. He simply deceived himself.'
But if Mr Betts wants to go on deceiving himself about all this, then perhaps a visit to UKMO’s occupational health would be appropriate.
Betts might want to recall what happened to David Pearce and the UK when he tried to confer scientistic self-deception and denial on IPCC during the Second Assessment in 1995/5 over the 'value of life': - http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/Nairob3b_.pdf pages 9 & 10
Now what is being looked at it the value of 'climate-models' that have been selectively crafted to avoid the potential for 'loss of control'.
Re: attitude of the MO to catastrophic events:
//
Page1 -
The earth is already committed to further warming in the next few decades, to which some adaptation will be required. A certain amount of warming cannot therefore be avoided via mitigation perhaps at least 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. Meanwhile, risks of catastrophic climate change and more particularly dangerous climate change impacts become significant with larger increases in temperature. Since adaptation has limits, mitigation will be required to address this risk. Hence, combinations of mitigation and adaptation will be needed to avoid dangerous climate change.
Page 8 -
Yet mitigation also remains crucial: to rely on adaptation alone would lead to a level of climate change that presents insurmountable challenges to adaptation in the longer term. These include the potential risks of extreme or catastrophic events (e.g. global or regional discontinuities), that have recently come to the fore in the literature on tipping points (Schellnhuber et al, 2005) or tipping extremes1 (Lenton et al, 2008), for example, the abrupt solid ice discharge from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, a critical threshold temperature at which a complete disintegration of Greenland Ice Sheet is certain, etc. These events are only likely to occur after 2050 and probably after 2100, but they are a key element of the justification for mitigation.
A critical point to this debate is that the thresholds for these major events are not known precisely. Kriegler et al (2009) elicited potential probability intervals for a selection of tipping extremes, and Levermann et al. (2012) updated these most recently for Europe. In both cases, expert elicitation, or recent review, considers the risk of tipping of major climatic subsystems is significant especially for high warming scenarios, though they are still at significant probability even for a moderate temperature increase within this century. Many of these events could exceed the limits of adaptation, or adaptation would be possible only at very high social, economic and environmental costs. Successful action on climate change, therefore, must include both mitigation and adaptation (see Box 1).
Box 1:
//
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/t/9/AVOID_WS2_D1_39.pdf
Related work on "tipping points":
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/science/explained/greenland
Aubrey
When you say "concentrations now *falling* when we compare coupling with uncoupling and not as before *rising* when we compare coupling with uncoupling", what is the "uncoupling" simulation to which you are referring?
If it's the one with:
• Start in 2010 at over 11.2 Gt C
• Peak at around 13 Gt C around 2020
• Shrink on average by ~ 3% a year by 2110
• By when it has reached an output value of ~ 1.5 Gt C per annum
Between 2010 and 2100 it weighed around 520 Gt C
• Gave an outcome value for CO2 concentrations of 450PPMV or 960 Gt C.
Then that's not an appropriate comparison as it's with a different model setup. It is only possible to infer positive or negative feedbacks by comparing like with like, ie: comparing coupled or uncoupled cases done with the same model.
Different models give different results, so comparing coupled from one model with uncoupled from another doesn't tell you anything, as the comparison is affected by the differences between the models.
And when you say:
are you seriously suggesting that, due to political pressure, the Met Office has altered its climate models to make future projections less scary?
While this is a refreshing change from the more usual view here (that the Met Office is exaggerating the risks of climate change) it is nevertheless still wrong.
Richard Betts -
From the "more usual view", I have to say that I am disappointed that, per nby's comment above [Jul 1, 2013 at 8:30 AM], the MO have seen fit to rely on Kriegler et al. as evidence of the risk of Greenland Ice Sheet disintegration. I made a comment in another context on the unsatisfactory nature of the methods of that paper.
And that was even before reading Annan's comment that at least one climate scientist deliberately exaggerated during such elicitations for political ends.
Despite repeated attempts on Twitter I can confirm that Aubrey is simply prisoner and victim of a maths-based philosophical outlook that paradoxically can only force him to automatically (=mindlessly) dismiss anything that isn't extremely alarmist.
His conspiracy theorism against Betts is easily explained by this confusion between reasoning and fooling oneself about reasoning.
omnologos:
Thanks - glad someone else has seen through him!
Aubrey appears to be trying to make the case that the Climate Change Act doesn't go far enough, but his argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the science.
Not banned yet, HaroldW:
I agree that Kriegler et al is not "evidence" of anything - it is a systematic survey of the opinions of various people (including me). However I don't think the AVOID report that you mention sees it at evidence either, just as an indicator that the various tipping points are worth thinking about.
For a more detailed discussion on abrupt and non-linear climate changes, you may be interested in this paper by Doug McNeall, myself and colleagues. Sadly it's paywalled, but I'll happily send you a copy if you email me using the format [name.surname] [at] metoffice.gov.uk - or we can see if Bishop Hill will be kind enough to pass it on if you don't want me to know your email address.
As I see it, Aubrey's problem is akin to something readers of this site are very familiar with: the issue of uniform priors.
In his world view, everything is equally possible a priori.
This might appear an elegant decision in the face of an unknown world, leaving the door open to new discovery. Unfortunately, when applied to a cost/benefit analysis, it becomes slave of the most remotely impossible occurrences, as long as they are costly enough.
This happens automatically and necessarily, therefore completely unreasonably. Hence the tragedy of a whole philosophical system that mutates, at its very root, into a reason-free continuous call for alarm.
One can only imagine Aubrey's group waking up to the reality that all the molecules in a hostess' undergarments may leap one foot simultaneously to the left.
Enjoying this and also highly amused to see you so well now established is this contrarian affinity group of 'Richard-Betts-and-his-models'.
I repeat, the Climate-Act is the UKMO/CCC's artfully opaque, selective and prescriptive creation. But for now its your party so you cry if you want to and as the night is young don't let that stop you.
Are asking me to repeat that UKMO all 'climate-models' [so far] have been selectively crafted to avoid the potential for 'loss of control'?
I am happy to do that and to point out again that by contrast there's room for a full range of you and your affinity-group-members 'views' here: - http://www.gci.org.uk/CBAT/cbat-domains/Domains.swf . . .
This transparently covers the feedback fields with which we are faced and which have been omitted [according to UKMO's publications] from its climate-models. Feedback effects are there whether we know them, like them, model them or not.
So just possibly, you should consider that your war is not really with me.
Your war is with those who say that whatever the cost, there is 'no physical constraint' - and indeed demand that there shall be 'no physical constraint' - on exponential economic growth.
In other words perhaps you want to re-examine your models and your whole approach in the light of that and your crucial omissions and those absurd demands.
Its an old story isn't it.
The 0854AM comment by Aubrey (inclusing the evils of 'e') is quite puzzling compared to all his work about the beauty of maths.
I would recommend Paul Davies' elegant solution to the people that will live the last three minutes of the Universe.
Most of this is over my head, which is why I have kept quiet, but Aubrey's 8.54 posting forces me to make a couple of points.
1. The suggestion that "all 'climate-models' [so far] have been selectively crafted to avoid the potential for 'loss of control'" sounds suspiciously like conspiracy theory to me. I have accused climate scientists of various things over the years but I have never yet suggested that they are engaging in any sort of conspiracy to make things appear less catastrophic rather than more.
2. "Your war is with those who say that whatever the cost, there is 'no physical constraint' - and indeed demand that there shall be 'no physical constraint' - on exponential economic growth." I don't know anyone on either side of the global warming debate who is arguing for unrestrained exponential economic growth. I do know that there is a strong movement — Greenpeace, FoE, and other dedicated activists to the fore — aiming for serious economic shrinkage, to the point that (to re-coin a cliché) life in the Middle Ages would seem like a vicarage tea party by comparison.
3. From a previous posting: this scaremongering about methane release from melting permafrost is becoming more than a little tedious. If anyone has any definitive answers to the following, can we please have them. Or STFU.
(a) What is the current temperature of the permafrost?
(b) By how much will the air temperature need to rise to produce the level of methane release which will be considered dangerous or even adverse?
(c) Given that we are already getting on for half-way to the doubling of CO2 which is the scaremongers' usual 'target' and given that the effect of CO2 on temperature is reputedly logarithmic, why has there (as yet) been no apparent progress towards any of the disasters — permafrost melt included — that have been forecast?
(d) What evidence is there anyway that such scenario is possible?
(e) When did it last happen?
(e(i)) If the answer to (e) is 'never', what is so special about this particular warm period that makes it likely to happen this time?
I could add:
(f) If there is any danger of an uncontrolled methane release, why don't we frack for the fracking stuff and use it as a fracking fuel?! If this scenario becomes likely, CO2 emissions look like being the least of our problems. We might as well at least go down in comfort!
Aubrey
You can quote 80's pop music as much as you like, but the fact remains that your statement:
is wrong, and
is also wrong. You did not say which "uncoupled" simulation you are comparing against when talking about the "falling concentrations" case, and I suspect that's because you know you are comparing against a different model setup, so your comparison is not valid.
What we need to compare against is a simulation with the same setup as the Climate Change Act "coupled" simulation, but run uncoupled. Such a simulation would be of academic interest but is not relevant to policy, which is why it's not in the CCC report.
In a simulation driven with the same emissions scenario but without climate-carbon cycle feedbacks (ie: "uncoupled"), I would expect CO2 concentrations to fall in the latter part of the 21st Century, with this fall being greater than in the coupled simulation. This is because the uncoupled simulation would continue to show a strengthening of carbon sinks due to rising CO2 concentrations (thus bringing CO2 concentrations down after emissions had peaked). The coupled simulation has weakened this decrease in concentrations due to the effects of climate change itself on the simulated carbon sinks. However, although the sinks are weakened and so has the fall in CO2 concentrations, it has not put them into reverse.
So this is still a positive feedback of warming on itself, as the coupled case gives: warming -> decreased carbon sink -> decreased fall in CO2 -> warmer temperatures relative to uncoupled case.
I don't consider myself at "war" with anybody. However, you have accused the Met Office of malpractice simply because you do not understand the science, despite the fact that my colleagues have attempted to explain it to you several times over the years. Your idea that the models have been "selectively crafted" for some politically-motivated downplaying of climate change risks is just bizarre conspiracy theorising.
If you could accept that you've misunderstood about the modelling of carbon cycle feedbacks, and that your "turning water into wine" accusation is just plain wrong, we could then move on. Until then, there's not a lot of point in continuing this discussion.
Richard Betts and [not forgetting] his colleagues' iterative denial of what has been on the record for some years now - as in the UK Climate Act - continues to be amusing to more people than myself.
The surprise value of their continuing to do this however relates in some way to Richard having actually led [so I am told] UKMO's 'coupled-carbon-cycle-modelling' from around 2005, when the effect of this coupling was modelled to 'reveal' a very strong positive feedback [or source emissions amplifying concentrations with the admission of 'carbon-cycle-coupling']: - http://www.gci.org.uk/images/DIE_OFF.pdf
The only explanation offered as to why this reversed and became such a strong negative feedback in the Climate-Act [where the *reverse* is obviously evident - call it by whatever name you like] is that it was actually a *different model* . . . . where we nonetheless had error-bars that went ~ 100% in both directions [talk about covering the options]: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Fractions_Returned_Retained_.pdf
Goodness: - is this Cindy, Barbie, Mandy possibly even a whole affinity group of models including My Little Pony, to which I see omnologos has now saucily added hostess's under-garments.
Astonishing: - what a frail and frilly defence. Will the Met Office be doing mail-order lingerie next?
Perhaps a change of tone would be appropriate.
Bruno, Galileo the Vatican and others came to more than just blows over a certain matter as we all know. However, with elegant maths, perhaps they all had more in common than they realized - who can say: - http://www.gci.org.uk/animations/ThreeDifferentOrbits_2.swf
The reason I said that Richard is having a 'Heisenberg Moment' is simply that to declare a conceptual matrix for 'uncertainty', you need a matrix of 'certainty' if measurement is to be possible at all: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/images/The_Richard_Betts_Moment.pdf
Every saint has a past, every sinner a future [or was it the other way round?].
Ahhh . . . .
Here, once again, is UKMO's undeclared 'about-face' on coupled carbon cycling in the 'climate-model' upon which the UK Climate Act [2008] is based, compared with what UKMO had published in IPCC AR4 [2007]: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Volta_Face_UKMO_.pdf
UKMO's 'Volta Face'
It couldn't be clearer; the issue is plain for all to see in the chart.
That to me is turning water into wine.
UKMO concealed this in EAC 2009, denied it again in EAC 2013 and if UKMO and Richard Betts go on denying this here, they extend the boundaries of 'climate-denial' beyond what is currently understood by that term.
Perhaps closure of the Hadley Centre is the solution?
Or have they joined hands with those James Hansen accuse of 'crimes-against-humanity'?
Perhaps this is another reason to go on funding them?
Who can say?
Richard Betts - thank you for the offer of the paper. However I do not understand why it is paywalled. The author team is given as:
"This article Analyzing abrupt and nonlinear climate changes and their impacts was written by Doug McNeall, Paul R. Halloran, Peter Good and Richard A. Betts of Met Office Hadley Centre. It is published with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland."
Do the Met Office have a policy on open data? If so please can you provide a reference? This was the only hit I found on a quick google and it is not "on point":
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/wcrp-conference
The UK Gov view reported to the EU in 2011 is here:
From p21
http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/open-access-report-2011_en.pdf
//
In the United Kingdom, the Research Councils expect their
funded scientists to make their papers freely accessible
either by depositing them into an appropriate repository,
usually within six months of the publication date, or by
publishing in an open access journal. Some Research Councils
have established, or fund, subject repositories into
which grant holders should deposit their research papers.
Others ask grant holders to deposit their papers into the
most appropriate repository; funds are made available
within the grant award to cover related costs. It also is interesting
to mention the UK Open Access Implementation
Group, established in 2010 with the aim to add value to
the work of the member organisations in order to increase
the rate at which the outputs from UK research are available
on open access terms. In addition, the group acts as a
forum in which the member organisations can coordinate
their policies and actions in support of OA. Other arrangements
include the exploration of a broker service that
would direct papers to the appropriate open access repository
for deposit (Open Access Repository Junction).
//
More info here:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.topic&id=1301
not banned yet
If you mean open access publication, as far as I'm aware there's no policy at present but I expect there will be soon. The Met Office does very little research funded by the Research Councils.
Richard Betts - Thanks for following up.
The Research Council was just the example quoted in the 2011 report. As I understand it the EU is moving to open access as a requirement for all public funded work - was your paper funded as an internal MO initiative and/or did it receive any external funding contributions?
//
Open Access in the EU and in the European Research Area:
February 2013: The Competitiveness Council (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) ( 200KB) met on 18 and 19 February 2013 in Brussels. In the field of research, the Council held a debate on open access to scientific information resulting from publicly funded research projects. Member States supported the idea of developing broader and more rapid access to scientific publications in order to help researchers and businesses to build on the findings of publicly funded research. Moreover, ministers welcomed the Commission’s view that open access to scientific publications should be a general principle of the future Horizon 2020 research framework programme. The optimal circulation, access to and transfer of scientific knowledge is one of the objectives for the establishment of a genuine European Research Area.
//
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-790_en.htm
http://www.openaire.eu/en/home
not banned yet
The paper was part of the Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (the Met Office's core programme on climate research) which is funded by DECC and Defra.